First, a definition:? Recent Common Ancestor - within the last 1000 years or so.?

All R1b1 men share a common ancestor in the past - 10,000s of years ago.? Some R1b1 groups share the common ancestor more recently than others.? Generally, when you are matching less than 30/37 - particularly as a Lineage - there is little chance of sharing a recent common ancestor.

Tom, each of the Lineages are groupings of men with a recent common ancestor.? i.e. - the men in Lineage I all share a recent common ancestor with each other, the men in Lineage II all share a recent common ancestor with each other, ...

Lineage I and Lineage II do not share a common ancestor with each other for some 1000s of years.? If you compare the two haplotypes, they are 20/37 - with a genetic distance of 22.? ?Lineage I & III and Lineage II and III are 25/37 - also 1000s of years to a common ancestor.

A simple way of putting it - Each separate coloring of results does not share a recent common ancestor with any of the other colorings.

This writeup may be of help (though it's dealing with 100s of years - instead of your 1000 years.

So there is no way lineage groups II and III and the various unassigned results could have the same male ancestor within recorded history. If also, as we suspect lineage group I represents the DNA "signature" of the direct male descendants of the Earls of Dunbar, then all the other groups are the result of a female descent, adopting the name of the town as a surname, or for some reason adopting an alias at some point. In theory it would seem that if any of the other lineages descend through a feamle Dunbar ancestor that their lineage results should group with another surname. Will that show up through this testing? For example names like Hamilton, Douglas Sutherland, Duff...that sort of thing.The Nesbetts seem to be seeing a similar pattern with the chief and various persons linked to the East March showing results starting with 13,24 and Nesbetts with an unknown ancestry or coming from Ireland having results grouping in the 13, 25 pattern. Finally will the test results be able to substantiate the traditional descent of families like Nesbett, Home and Corbett and Washingtonfrom the Dunbars?

Tom, correct.? Lineage I, II & III do not share a common male ancestor with each other in recorded history.? Your theory for the source of the yDNA profile of Lineage II & III is a reasonably complete list.?

I spent some time last night comparing the Nesbitt results available on Y-Search and found that some of these men appear to share a common ancestor with Lineage II.? None of the ones available to me matched into Lineage I.

Clan Dunbar has also been contacted by Matheson Clan and one of their men is a very close match to Dunbar Lineage I. We are working to get more info on that match.

It is reasonable to expect matches with other surnames in any of the Lineages.? I? looked in the FTDNA data (comparing to those? who allow a comparison) and found no matches for Lineage I, II or III with names Hamilton, Douglas, Sutherland, Duff, Nesbett, Home, Washington, Corbett.

Following are the matches I did see in a quick look at 37 markers.? I know it isn't complete. (For example - the Nesbitt matches didn't show up - which says that they are being held private - a pity. I have heard that a number of the clans don't share their info - so that may seriously affect clan Dunbar's ability to compare with other Scottish results)

FTDNA reports matches when two men are 12/12, 23/25, 24/25, 25/25, 33/37, 34/37, 35/37, 36/37 & 37/37.? Sometimes, they will report 11/12 - but I have not figured out why they do sometimes and not others.? Their approach is the best possibility we have when comparing two men directly against each other.? (a situation that I try to get away from with the Lineage approach)

A part of the analysis is to look at all of the men who are tested that share a known common ancestor - in our first comparison - D-4 and D-5 share a most recent common ancestor of Peter, b 1668.? Every marker where they match is the marker result that Peter would have if we could test him.? They are identical on every marker except CDYb.? One of the two has a mutation on CDYb - different from Peter.? We don't know from this first analysis which one has the mutation.?

Now look at D-4/5 in combination with D-12.? Their common ancestor is Robert, Peter's father. So, each marker where they match tells us the result Robert carried.? Each one where they differ is one where either Peter or Joshua's branch had a mutation.? We now have a question about 456 and 576 - plus we still have the doubt from above on CDYb from D-4/5.? As D-5 and D-12 both have a 38 at CDYb, it is easy to discern that D-4 carries the mutation, which occurred some time between Peter and D-4.? More tests could isolate which actual man started this mutation.

We can't tell who has the mutation at 456 and 576 by looking at only D-4/5 and D-12.? Looking at other results in the Lineage may give us the answer.? ? As D-1 "sides" with D-4/5, we predict that D-12 carries the mutation in both cases.? ?More results may make us change our mind - but I have probably deduced this correctly.?

Now, take a larger group of men who are matching - like our whole Dunbar Lineage I.? If you look at the group, you'll see that one marker result dominates at each marker and for a number of the markers, all men are identical.? In each of the situations where there is a difference, there is only one man with the differing result - all the others are the same.? (The exception is 464d, where one man has a higher differing result and one man has a lower differing result.)?? If the examination of Robert's descendants conflicts with this overview - it is a warning that we might get a different answer as more results emerge.? (once in a while, I do change a marker on the ancestral hapoltype as more data is received)

The row of numbers alongside of the name "Dunbar Lineage I" is the apparent ancestral haplotype.? When you have created? this ancestral hapotype - sometimes called the Lineage Haplotype - you can compare each man's results against the Lineage Haplotype.? So, in our present situation:

- D-1 is 4 away from the ancestral haplotype - or 33/37 to it.? Probably, he is from an early branch of the Dunbar clan, different from the other men tested thus far

- D-4, D-5 & D-12 each have slightly differing results, but when we look at their composite (as we did in #3 above) we believe that these mutations are sometime after Robert - and that Robert was 37/37 to the ancestral haplotype

- D-16 is 23/25 to the ancestral haplotype.? We theorize that the man tested has had two mutations in his line since the point where he shares a common ancestor with all of the others.? We are waiting on his results to 67 markers.? As this is the longest paper trail, it is possible that one of his two "mutations" may turn out to be the ancestral haplotype and all of the other men are from the same branch (different from D-16) and carry the same mutation.? We'll keep an eye on this.

- D-2 is 24/25 to the ancestral haplotype.? He has had one mutation in his line since the branching

-? D-5 is 37/37 vs the Ancestral Haplotype and vs the haplotype of Robert, Hingham MA 1693.? No mutations.

Hi, Does this mean that any Unassigned results (D-9) should assume that there has been a change somewhere of the surname? Or is there any use in upgrading from 37 to 67? It is quite confusing, since there is no match with anyone at all at the 12 level. Thanks for any response.

Monica, it will be worth upgrading to 67 markers when you can get an agreement from one or more of the men that your D-9 matches 23/25 or 33/37 (or better) to also upgrade to 67. Otherwise, stay at 37 and watch for an interesting match.

Your story would appear to fit within the scenarios that Tom laid out: " ...then all the other groups are the result of a female descent, adopting the name of the town as a surname, or for some reason adopting an alias at some point."

Ditto the other two men with no other Dunbar matches and others who will show up over time.

Hi Terry - I just want to make sure that you are as confident as humanly possible of the correctness of your statement that Lineages II and III and the "unassigned" results CANNOT poosibly be related to Lineage I within the historical period. The effects of that upon people bearing the surname are going to have a much greater impact than to say people with names like Smith or Parker or Schiffmacher or even "Clan" names like MacDonald or Campbell in that there has always been a presumption extending even to Lyon Court that individuals bearing the same Scottish "Name" are related in some degree. These results will certainly challenge that assumption and unless we can find some link to Dunbars who have inherited the name through female descent such as the Dunbars of Hempriggs, there are going to be a lot of people having to re-think long held concepts! I'm not challenging your knowledge on these matters, I just want to make you fully aware of the consequences to certain folks. Yours, Tom Dunbar

I'm having difficulty trying to find out how to post a new topic, so trust this message will end up with someone who can can enlighten me.

Published recently is a DNA profile for Crinan of Dunkeld. How was this obtained?

From my elementary knowledge of DNA testing, to prove a relationship, a DNA sample must be matched against a second DNA sample.

If the Crinan profile has been deduced from the DNA of a recognised descendant, I suggest that Crinan's data should be view with great caution. Who knows what has happened in over one thousand years?

I would suggest a more fruitful exercise would be to contact todays living representatives of Mochrum, Kilconzie, Westfield, Durn etc. for DNA samples and compare the profiles for commonality. Then, peasants like myself might at least prove we are in some way connected to Dunbar and have inherited the name from one of the families who MAY in themselves have roots to the Dunbar early beginnings.

Just doing a quick look around the DNA results at YSearch I found a George Hay b.c. 1752, from Rafford in Moray who to my uneducated eye seems to match Dunbar Lineage III at 23 out of 25 and 31 out of 37 markers. There are also a group of Rose results which seem to be linking to Tormut Rose a settler of Block Isl. b.c. 1630. The closest results of this group are a George Rose and a John Rose both b.c. 1790 who seem to match 21 out of 25. Do these seeming correlations have any real meaning or are they just coincidence?

Tom. replying to your Aug 4 query - yes.? As best as we know from our learnings in genetic genealogy, we are confident that Dunbar Lineages I, II & III do not share a common ancestor in the historic timeframe.? It would be great for you to get immersed in the analytical side of this, as it appears to be an area of your interest.?

In general, our confidence is greatest within the last 3-500 years, however, the same tools are applied to longer periods.? As the Dunbar family is working a longer time frame, you do get into the era of less certainty.? I am working a similar timeframe with my Barton family and am doubting that a 30/37 match is meaningful at 900 years - and that is much closer than what we see with Dunbar I, II, III.? You want to compare Lineage haplotypes, and not individuals from different haplotypes - as the individuals may have mutated closer together in the 100s of years since their separate ancestors had the ancestral haplotypes.

Pat, the convention is to list the earliest known ancestor of the test taker.? I agree that an ancestor is not proven with a single test.? To prove the ancestor, you need to test descendants of two different sons and to get matching results.? As I understand, there is only one son-line from Crinan, so we will never be able to actually prove Crinan's yDNA.? We will be able to prove the first of his descendants with two known sons when we get those descendants tested (and get a matching result).? In the meantime, we know that this is D-16's result.? D-16's ancestors had two mutations through the centuries to create D-16's specific result.? D-16's paper trail says it goes back to Crinan. Probably, the common ancestor of D-16 and the others who actually had the Lineage I haplotype was a man who lived 100s of years later than Crinan. Assuming that the paper trail is correct, Crinan may have been identical to Lineage I haplotype, or he could have had one or more mutations.

The Dunbar project is working to get known descendants from all of these families you mention tested.? Any help that you can do in making that happen will be greatly appreciated.? Debra Nowelll would be your best contact for this aspect.

Tom - re your 8/8 posting:

It is best to compare these different surname results to the Lineage result and not to one of the individuals in the Lineage (unless you are using an individual who is 37/37 to the Lineage haplotype - and then, there is no difference)

A 23/25 match (or better) is potentially interesting and needs to be upgraded to compare at 37 markers.? A 21/25 match isn't of interest unless you have an ancient paper trail convergence - and then you still want the upgrade to 37 markers.

A 31/37 is "iffy".? You need to be looking at specific markers on this one.? You also need some reason to be looking further at this match - such as a paper trail connection - or, they are in the Dunbar family, or ...

Iffy matches may benefit from upgrades to 67 markers.? We are still learning how to use the extra markers.? Whenever you have folks who are matching or near matches and they are willing to upgrade, it will be worth doing to see what the profile of the Lineage is at 67 markers. Our Barton Lineage is not seeing many mutations in these additional 30 markers - but there are a few. As your group gets larger, you begin looking for shared mutations.

Can you help me and my dad James Greenlaw he has his Result, his Haplogroup is R1b1b2

1 to 12 Marker's

13, 24, 14, 11, 11, 14, 13, 12, 13, 13, 14, 28,

26 to 37 Marker's

11, 11, 19, 23, 18, 15, 20, 16, 33, 37, 13, 12,

38 to 47 Marker's

11, 9, 15, 16, 8, 10, 10, 8, 10, 10,

48 to 60 Marker's

12, 21, 21, 16, 10, 12, 12, 16, 8, 12, 20, 21, 14,

61 to 67 Marker's

12, 11, 13, 11, 11, 12, 12,

Does this match the maker line??

is it true 2 Dunbar

this might be another case where we uncover another Dunbar in disguise. I notice we have a William of Greenlaw, He was a Grandson of Cospatrick III, and Married Ada, his second Cousin,also a grandaughter of Cospatrick III. William inherited the lands of Greenlaw and Home from his Mother, Diedre of Hiersel, He was Baron of Home, so did he style himself Greenlaw, or was there a split later among several sons? Edwin Cunnea has the Home/Hume lines, and could probably tell us more, but there may be a strong possibility that Greenlaw is a Pseudonym for Dunbar.

I'm a little confused here? Tom and I match in the test's but he is in a different linage and we have no contection. And if neither I in L-2 and Tom in L-3 do not match those in L-1 as Dunbar's where do we get the connection? Tom, doesn't Luara Griffith book connect you to William & Cathrine of meeting house springs? I though that's why you had it? The not being part of the Dunbar linage statement really confuse's me?

Can you tell me where you see Tom matching you in the tests? If you're talking about Tom, the Clan Dunbar genealogist, I show you two as a genetic distance GD 6 @ 12 markers. FTDNA considers anything over 1 @ 12 NOT a match. The next level @ 25 markers is GD12 and GD27 at 37 markers. We also have a Thomas and he's GD5 @ 12 markers.

Lineage 2 does not share a male Dunbar ancestor with Lineage 1. The haplogroups are completely different. It's very possible that you descend from a female Dunbar but that DNA will not show up on a Y-DNA test. Only males have a Y-chromosome.

I'm a little confused here? Tom and I match in the test's but he is in a different linage and we have no contection. And if neither I in L-2 and Tom in L-3 do not match those in L-1 as Dunbar's where do we get the connection? Tom, doesn't Luara Griffith book connect you to William & Cathrine of meeting house springs? I though that's why you had it? The not being part of the Dunbar linage statement really confuse's me?